Why This Scurrilous Campaign Against Left?

OPPOSE THE INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL

THE CPI(M)'s opposition to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal and the associated efforts to draw India into a US-dominated strategic partnership has, naturally, led to a violent reaction from the ruling classes and its media voices. Through these columns, over the past couple of years, since the first joint statement on strategic partnership released by prime minister Manmohan Singh and US president George Bush in July 2005, we have been drawing attention to the dangers of India being turned into a supplicant of US imperialism. Apart from negating the consensual declared objective of pursuing an independent foreign policy, such a partnership with US imperialism has consequent serious implications on India 's defence and security concerns. These issues and such concerns will continue to be debated in this issue and subsequently in these columns. Hence, these arguments are not being repeated here.

However, the important point that merits consideration here is that instead of meeting our criticism of the deal and its consequences, our detractors are mounting a scurrilous campaign against us. US imperialism's cheer leaders and the drumbeaters of the Indian ruling classes are advancing absurd reasoning of the CPI(M)'s opposition to the deal instead of contesting what we publicly state.

One such reasoning is that while the government is engaged in this deal for increasing the electricity generation capacity in the country to benefit our farmers and poor people, the CPI(M) is opposing it at the behest of China. This is not unusual for the ruling classes to resort to such obnoxiously low level arguments when their analytical bankruptcy to contest the CPI(M)'s point of view is exposed. Further, the resort to such tactics is also to conceal their unabashed eagerness to ally with US imperialism at the expense of exposing the country's sovereignty to greater vulnerability.

Let us take up the issue of augmenting India 's energy capacities and generating more electricity. There can be no two opinions on the need to expand our capacities to generate more power. As India develops further, energy augmentation is of utmost importance. The moot question, however, is whether the nuclear energy expansion is the only option, or, even the best option that we have at the moment.
As of 2005, nuclear power generation was 3,310 MW or a mere 2.5 per cent of India's total power generation capacity. Now, if this were to increase to 10,000 MW by the year 2015 as planned, this would still be only 5 to 7 per cent of India's projected capacity generation then. Thus, this deal and the attendant consequences to India's sovereignty and foreign policy are being undertaken for such a miniscule part of our power generation.

This, apart, is nuclear power generation the most cost-effective? On the contrary, it is the most expensive option. As compared to coal, nuclear energy would be one and a half times more expensive. Compared with gas, nuclear power would be twice as expensive. So is the case with hydro electricity. Therefore, by all counts, nuclear power is the most expensive.

The National Hydro Power Corporation has estimated that India has at least 50,000 MW of untapped hydro electric potential. They have estimated that in Nepal , the untapped potential would be higher at 83,000 MW. On the basis of our friendly relations with Nepal and through international agreements, the tapping of such huge hydro electric potential will not only augment our energy capacities at half the cost of nuclear energy, but will also tame these rivers which regularly consume the lives of hundreds of people through torrential floods. This year's floods have been described by the United Nations as 'unprecedented' in human memory.

In addition, India is indiscriminately allowing the export of coal and other non-renewable mineral resources. Instead, if this coal were to be utilised for generating electricity, it would cost us much less than producing nuclear energy.

Given this, the government's arguments that the Indo-US nuclear deal is to augment our energy resources and to provide electricity to the farmers and poor sounds, indeed, hollow. On the contrary, it appears that as a consequence of this deal, huge commercial orders running into thousands of crores of rupees for the purchase of nuclear reactors would be placed on US and other advanced countries corporations. The profit bonanza to multinational corporations is there for all to see with the attendant benefits to sections of corporate India. Is India then actually going in for this deal to bolster US economic interests? Can we allow this to happen under the false propaganda of benefit to the Indian farmers? If the same amount of resources were to be spent on generating power through hydro or coal, as would be spent on the purchase of nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel, India's energy augmentation would be many times higher. Thus, the nuclear deal not only exposes India to greater vulnerability on various scores, it drains a huge amount of our scarce resources and, thus, prevents India from exploiting fully its available less expensive energy options. These are the facts.

The more bizarre disinformation campaign is that the CPI(M) is opposing the deal at China's behest. This charge, however, does not apply to the BJP presumably, for its opposition of the deal. The reason for the BJP's opposition, of course, is entirely different from that of the CPI(M)'s. Given the BJP's track record when in government, the current opposition is a mere posturing and smacks of a 'hurt' that such a deal ought to have been concluded under its government and not under the UPA government!

Be that as it may, those who know of the CPI(M)'s birth and history will know that for nearly two decades both the international communist giants – the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China – opposed the CPI(M)'s policies from different perspectives. The CPI(M)'s policy directions are determined by its own perceptions of what is in the interests of India and its people. Those who are willing to eagerly surrender India's sovereignty to US imperialism should be the last ones to dole out unsolicited advise and certificates of patriotism. If our detractors are worthy of character and substance, then they ought to meet our arguments on their merits rather than take recourse to such perfidy.

We heard similar arguments when the CPI(M) opposed Pokhran-II. In fact, the then NDA's defence minister, George Fernandes, publicly announced that the nuclear tests were necessary to meet the Chinese challenge. Once Pakistan responded by its nuclear tests, India's huge advantage in conventional warfare vis-à-vis Pakistan was wiped out in a single stroke. Far from enhancing India 's security and defence potential, the BJP/NDA through Pokhran-II reduced us to the level of Pakistan's capabilities. The BJP today argues that the Indo-US nuclear deal limits our strategic programme which can only be to China 's and Pakistan's advantage.

Who, may we ask, is vigorously pursuing this Indo-US nuclear deal which, we are told, will limit India's strategic capacities, thus, providing advantage to our neighbours? It is those who are propagating and supporting the deal who are, thus, by this logic, acting at the behest of China and Pakistan !

While the pen-pushers of US imperialism and the Indian ruling classes continue to spread canards exposing their complete incapacity to meet the CPI(M)'s objections on merit, the Indian people, surely, will not allow India to be reduced to a US supplicant.

In the 60th anniversary of our independence, the 150th anniversary of 1857 and the 250th anniversary of the battle of Plassey which heralded the colonial rule over India, we cannot allow any erosion of our hard won sovereignty and independence. On the contrary, we need to strengthen it.

By ANIRBAN

Why We Are Against India-US Nuclear Deal

Much has been said and written about the India-US Nuclear Deal; beginning with the statement issued by many eminent nuclear scientists soon after the talks on the deal began between India and US governments. Public fora and People's organisations such as Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace called it anti-Sovereignty. Today when it is seen as an issue of conflict between the UPA and its Left front allies, we as representatives of people's movements must re-iterate our stand, which is that the deal is not just anti-democratic but against peace, and against environmentally sustainable energy generation and self-reliant economic development.

The Left front is questioning the fact that such an international deal with significant implications is imposed on the Indian people and Parliament, with no public debate and consultation in India. While US Congress took a year and a half to discuss the proposed change in the US laws, permitting nuclear commerce with India, the process in India has been totally undemocratic.

The deal is part of a successful attempt by the United States to build a strategic relationship with India, in confronting the rising capitalist challenge from China where India will be used as its client in the region. Directly or indirectly, the US will also enter the Indian sub-continent, to manage intra-regional, inter-country relations. This whole process is likely to escalate the arms race between Pakistan and India, sabotaging the India-Pakistan peace process. How can we ignore that fact the US sells arms to both India and Pakistan?

The agreement also facilitates a full-fledged international exchange of nuclear fuel and technology with insufficient caution and control. There will no doubt be a corporate rush to extract, export and misuse nuclear fuel and technology, and it will be very difficult to prevent misuse even for the arms trade. Highly superficial clauses don't instill any confidence against such a possibility.

However, our basic objections to this deal stem from our opposition to the production and use of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The irreversible dangers of radioactivity and its ongoing impact on health, water, and the environment are factors that are being summarily dismissed in an irresponsible manner. The whole cycle of nuclear production beginning with uranium mining, is fraught with catastrophic dangers, and as a nation we cannot use the decisions of another country as justification for our own. Places like Jaduguda in Jharkhand, Kota and Pokhran in Rajasthan, have already demonstrated the ongoing dangers of nuclear use to the common citizen.

We, in India, have inherited rich renewable sources of energy, which are environmentally benign and abundantly available. The solar, wind, and ocean waves along with human power need to be fully tapped and put to use with people's control. Appropriate technology, research and development for production of cheaper equipment and tools, need to be combined with just distribution, for the right priorities. There is no political will for this in the ruling establishment. Estimates show that India can generate far more energy through alternative, environmentally sound sources. The nuclear energy option should be put up for widespread public debate giving citizens a full opportunity to make an informed choice.

This deal however raises questions beyond nuclear energy opening up large spaces for US government and corporate control in India. This, no doubt, is a symbol of imperialism already demonstrated through the Iraq war and the obvious links of US policy with corporate control over resources. With unbound exchange of information, data and material, knowledge and technology the dominant global power is all set to encroach upon Indian reserves and impinge upon our sovereignty. The deal ensures supply of sufficient nuclear material to nuclear reactors in India for the next 40 years, but the precautionary agreements to negotiations and consultations are only promises for the future. All this is subject to approvals and conditions to be monitored by the US Congress, while sidelining the Indian parliament.

The UPA government is proving to be increasingly submissive to the exploitation of our resources, knowledge and cheap labour by commercial interests and corporate interests. The BJP and its allies are also in the power game, using capitalist forces for support. The Left has raised an important issue using their bargaining power. Non-party people's formations may not have the power in parliament, but we have an important set of issues that need to be considered.

The Indian Constitution which allows deal such as this, as well as international treaties and agreements to be reached without democratic consultation, needs an amendment to make public debate and referendums mandatory and pre-conditional. We need an approval from the Indian electorate before we agree to sign the agreement.


By Sandeep Pandey, Aruna Roy & Medha Patkar
Sandeep Pandeyashaashram@yahoo.com
Aruna Roye-mail: arunaroy@gmail.com, mkssrajasthan@gmail.com
Medha Patkare-mail: nba.medha@gmail.com
Courtsey Countercurrents.org

No To Nukes

Japan sees nuclear power as a solution to global warming, but it's paying a
price. Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of problems at the
world's biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of radioactive elements into
the air and ocean and an indefinite shutdown. Government and company officials
initially downplayed the incident and stuck to the official line that the
country's nuclear plants are earthquake-proof, but they gave way in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Japan has a sordid history of serious
nuclear accidents or spills followed by cover-ups.

It isn't alone. The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate under a
level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security apparatus. Last
year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a
processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator
shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass
sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn
workers nearby. A report on the accident from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
was hidden from the public, and only came to light because one of the
commissioners wrote a memo on it that became part of the public record.

The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good
rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979
and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear
plant since 1978 (that order was later canceled), and until recently it seemed
none ever would. But rising natural gas prices and worries about global warming
have put the nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and
environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to
climate change because nuclear power plants don't release greenhouse gases.

They make a weak case. The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the
reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless
controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear
infrastructure will be a slow process - far too slow to make a difference on
global warming. That's just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky.
What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none
of the risks.

Glowing pains

Modern nuclear plants are much safer than the Soviet-era monstrosity at
Chernobyl. But accidents can and frequently do happen. The Union of Concerned
Scientists cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear plants in which reactors have been
shut down for more than a year as evidence of serious and widespread safety
problems.

Nuclear plants are also considered attractive terrorist targets, though that
risk too has been reduced. Provisions in the 2005 energy bill required threat
assessments at nuclear plants and background checks on workers. What hasn't
improved much is the risk of spills or even meltdowns in the event of natural
disasters such as earthquakes, making it mystifying why anyone would consider
building reactors in seismically unstable places like Japan (or California,
which has two, one at San Onofre and the other in Morro Bay).

Weapons proliferation is an even more serious concern. The uranium used in
nuclear reactors isn't concentrated enough for anything but a dirty bomb, but
the same labs that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel can be used to create
weapons-grade uranium. Thus any country, such as Iran, that pursues uranium
enrichment for nuclear power might also be building a bomb factory. It would be
more than a little hypocritical for the U.S. to expand its own nuclear power
capacity while forbidding countries it doesn't like from doing the same.

The risks increase when spent fuel is recycled. Five countries reprocess their
spent nuclear fuel, and the Bush administration is pushing strongly to do the
same in the U.S. Reprocessing involves separating plutonium from other materials
to create new fuel. Plutonium is an excellent bomb material, and it's much
easier to steal than enriched uranium. Spent fuel is so radioactive that it
would burn a prospective thief to death, while plutonium could be carried out of
a processing center in one's pocket. In Japan, 200 kilograms of plutonium from a
waste recycling plant have gone missing; in Britain, 30 kilograms can't be
accounted for. These have been officially dismissed as clerical errors, but the
nuclear industry has never been noted for its truthfulness or transparency. The
bomb dropped on Nagasaki contained six kilograms.

Technology might be able to solve the recycling problem, but the question of
what to do with the waste defies answers. Even the recycling process leaves
behind highly radioactive waste that has to be disposed of. This isn't a
temporary issue: Nuclear waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years.
The only way to get rid of it is to put it in containers and bury it deep
underground - and pray that geological shifts or excavations by future
generations that have forgotten where it's buried don't unleash it on the
surface.

No country in the world has yet built a permanent underground waste
repository, though Finland has come the closest. In the U.S., Congress has been
struggling for decades to build a dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada but has been
unable to overcome fierce local opposition. One can hardly blame the Nevadans.
Not many people would want 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste buried in their
neighborhood or transported through it on the way to the dump.

The result is that nuclear waste is stored on-site at the power plants,
increasing the risk of leaks and the danger to plant workers. Eventually, we'll
run out of space for it.

Goin' fission?

Given the drawbacks, it's surprising that anybody would seriously consider a
nuclear renaissance. But interest is surging; the NRC expects applications for
up to 28 new reactors in the next two years. Even California, which has a
31-year-old ban on construction of nuclear plants, is looking into it. Last
month, the state Energy Commission held a hearing on nuclear power, and a group
of Fresno businessmen plans a ballot measure to assess voter interest in
rescinding the state's ban.

Behind all this is a perception that nuclear power is needed to help fight
climate change. But there's little chance that nuclear plants could be built
quickly enough to make much difference. The existing 104 nuclear plants in the
U.S., which supply roughly 20% of the nation's electricity, are old and nearing
the end of their useful lives. Just to replace them would require building a new
reactor every four or five months for the next 40 years. To significantly
increase the nation's nuclear capacity would require far more.

The average nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $4 billion. Because of
the risks involved, there is scarce interest among investors in putting up the
needed capital. Nor have tax incentives and subsidies been enough to lure them.
In part, that's because the regulatory process for new plants is glacially slow.
The newest nuclear plant in the U.S. opened in 1996, after having been ordered
in 1970 - a 26-year gap. Though a carbon tax or carbon trading might someday
make the economics of nuclear power more attractive, and the NRC has taken steps
to speed its assessments, community opposition remains high, and it could still
take more than a decade to get a plant built.

Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas
emissions, the world would need to build a new plant every one to two weeks
until mid-century. Even if that were feasible, it would overwhelm the handful of
companies that make specialized parts for nuclear plants, sending costs through
the roof.

The accelerating threat of global warming requires innovation and may demand
risk-taking, but there are better options than nuclear power. A combination of
energy-efficiency measures, renewable power like wind and solar, and
decentralized power generators are already producing more energy worldwide than
nuclear power plants. Their use is expanding more quickly, and the decentralized
approach they represent is more attractive on several levels. One fast-growing
technology allows commercial buildings or complexes, such as schools, hospitals,
hotels or offices, to generate their own electricity and hot water with
micro-turbines fueled by natural gas or even biofuel, much more efficiently than
utilities can do it and with far lower emissions.

The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according to a May
report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to produce than nuclear
power. Further, the amount of electricity that could be generated simply by
making existing non-nuclear power plants more efficient is staggering. On
average, coal plants operate at 30% efficiency worldwide, but newer plants
operate at 46%. If the world average could be raised to 42%, it would save the
same amount of carbon as building 800 nuclear plants.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it does on
renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry amounted
to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a researcher based in Cambridge,
Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy monitors energy spending. Renewable power
sources, including hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion
went toward conservation.

That's out of whack. Some countries - notably France, which gets nearly 80% of
its power from nuclear plants and has never had a major accident - have made
nuclear energy work, but at a high cost. The state-owned French power monopoly
is severely indebted, and although France recycles its waste, it is no closer
than the U.S. to approving a permanent repository. Tax dollars are better spent
on windmills than on cooling towers.

It's Tempting To Turn To Nuclear Plants to Combat Climate Change, ButAlternatives Are Safer and Cheaper.

Courtsey from Los Angeles Times